3 Things the Oscars 2026
Got Wrong
The Oscars are meant to celebrate the best in filmmaking, but every year, a few decisions inevitably spark debate. The 2026 ceremony was no different, delivering its share of deserving winners. Yet, a handful of choices felt more like consensus picks rather than true reflections of the year’s best work.
Whether it was overlooking superior craftsmanship, favoring intention over execution, or rewarding visibility over substance, a few outcomes stood out for the wrong reasons. Here are three awards the Academy got wrong.
1. Sound
Winner:
F1 – Gareth John, Al Nelson, Gwendolyn Yates Whittle, Gary A. Rizzo, and Juan Peralta
My Pick:
Sirāt – Amanda Villavieja, Laia Casanovas and Yasmina Praderas
Reasoning:
This feels like a prime example of the Academy’s tendency to reward immersion over interpretation—though I’d argue Sirāt achieves both. It may also reflect a broader pattern of underrecognizing international films outside their designated category.
Sure, F1 has nomination-worthy sound design. Its action sequences are notably elevated by placing the viewer inside the vehicle rather than outside it, and its precise control over intensity becomes part of the storytelling.
But Sirāt goes well beyond that, building a whole world rooted in sound, from the heartbeat of the oppressed to the silence of the desert. It uses sound to unearth feelings you didn’t even realize you had buried. Sirāt’s control over atmosphere and emotional crescendos is masterful, and the film’s success hinges on the presence created through sound.
If there were ever a moment to recognize a lesser-known film for truly exceptional work, this was it.
2. Documentary Feature Film
Winner:
Mr. Nobody Against Putin
My Pick:
The Alabama Solution
Reasoning:
This year has me questioning what the Academy actually values when evaluating documentaries. When people call the Oscars performative, this is the kind of result they’re pointing to.
It feels like Mr. Nobody Against Putin was recognized solely for its subject matter. And to be fair, that subject carries global weight in a way few stories do. The look at overt propaganda within schools is unsettling and enlightening, and it’s a perspective we likely wouldn’t have seen without Pasha’s bravery. That still stands.
But if you strip away the subject matter, the film’s merits wither away. It’s unfocused, egocentric, and loosely assembled. Instead of using the interviews to reinforce certain points or deepen personal perspective, the entire film feels like a glorified vlog. It’s a collection of moments rather than a cohesive narrative, and it’s unclear if the film is about the Russian war machine or Pasha’s personal journey.
On the other hand, The Alabama Solution also tackles an urgent issue by exposing corruption at the highest levels through exceptional investigative work, with subjects facing immediate danger. While its scope may be less global, its execution is far more precise. There’s no confusion about what the film is building toward or what it wants you to take away.
It’s unflinching, controlled, and purposeful—an example of documentary filmmaking that prioritizes structure and clarity without sacrificing impact.
Let’s keep it simple: There is a reason why The Alabama Solution has a 4.2 on Letterbox while Mr. Nobody Against Putin sits at a 3.7.
Both films address something important and incorporate real sacrifice, but only one constructs something powerful from its footage.
3. Directing
Winner:
Paul Thomas Anderson – One Battle After Another
My Pick:
Chloé Zhao – Hamnet
Reasoning:
One of my broader criticisms of the Oscars is their tendency to overrecognize a few films instead of spreading the love. Some critics have suggested that Paul Thomas Anderson’s win was, at least in part, influenced by legacy, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that sentiment holds some truth.
Admittedly, I know less about Anderson’s process for One Battle After Another, but Zhao’s influence over Hamnet is ever-present. I discussed it a bit in my predictions for Best Director, but her Jung-inspired approach draws deeply layered, emotionally devastating performances—not just from the leads, but across the entire cast. Beyond that, the film feels cohesive on every level, with its themes, tone, and emotional arcs all working in alignment.
Perhaps I’m somewhat influenced by my belief that Hamnet was the best film of the year and that such an impactful candidate should receive recognition beyond the best actress category. The film itself deserves commendation.
Final Thoughts
Overall, the 2026 Oscars weren’t especially controversial. The vast majority of winners were easy to predict or, at the very least, unsurprising. Amy Madigan’s win was probably the biggest surprise, but even those who favored other performances can likely see why she prevailed. It’s a meaningful recognition—both for the horror genre and for older women, a group that is often overlooked.
While there are films I wish had received more recognition, and I would have liked to see the awards spread out a bit more, none of the winners felt outright undeserving. 2026 was a strong year for film, and the voting structure inevitably favors the most visible contenders.
I do appreciate how the smaller categories allowed niche films some of the spotlight—Frankenstein, Sentimental Value, and even F1 to some extent. But I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention my disappointment that some of the year’s best films received 0 recognition (looking at you, Marty Supreme and Bugonia).
At the end of the day, the Oscars aim to reward the best in filmmaking, but often end up pushing what is most visible, most accessible, or easiest to rally around. This leaves some of the most deliberate, well-crafted films on the outside looking in.
This year was a grand step forward for horror. Next year, I would like to see some love for science fiction beyond the technical categories.
Leave a Reply